Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 10 16 Regular 600 Staff Report CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 600 Consent ADMINISTRATIVE Information APPEAL Public Hearing Regular x October 16, 2013 Special Meeting Mgr. / Dept REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 20-35, Winter Springs City Code, the Community Development Department requests the City Commission consider an Administrative Appeal of Staff's interpretation that a building permit application proposing an addition to a single-family home located at 1691 Wingspan Way(Property owner Richard&Lisa Van Smith)does not constitute an accessory dwelling unit and would not require that the property owner obtain a conditional use permit under Chapter 20 of the Winter Springs City Zoning Code. The Appeal was filed by Robert Holmes,the neighboring property owner who resides at 1689 Wingspan Way. SYNOPSIS: On September 10, 2013,the City received a building permit application for a proposed addition to a single-family home owned by Richard&Lisa Van Smith located at 1691 Wingspan Way, Glen Eagle, Unit II. The addition is approximately 989 square feet and consists of a multi-purpose playroom, guest bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. The neighboring property owner (Robert Holmes) through his attorney (Alison Yurko) claimed that the addition constitutes an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and requires a conditional use zoning permit under the City Code before the building permit could be issued. On September 20, 2013, the Community Development Director advised Mr. Holmes' attorney that City staff determined that the proposed addition was not an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU),but an addition to the single-family home. Therefore, a conditional use zoning permit under section 20-33 of the City's Zoning Code is not required. On September 26, 2013, pursuant to Section 20-35, City Code,Mr.Holmes,through his attorney,filed an Administrative Appeal challenging City staff's determination that the addition is not an ADU and does not require a conditional use zoning permit. In this case,the City Commission is serving in an appellate capacity for purposes of reviewing the City staff's determination and the related recommendation of the Planning&Zoning Board. The role of the City Commission is to consider the Appeal filed by Mr.Holmes and determine whether the appeal has merit or not. The Administrative Appeal is quasi-judicial and is subject to a limited standard of review October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 2 of 7 pursuant to section 2-35, City Code. Specifically, section 20-35 (E)provides that the Commission's review of administrative zoning decisions made by City staff shall be based upon the following criteria: (1) whether the applicant was properly afforded procedural due process; (2) whether the decision under review is supported by competent, substantial evidence; and (3)whether the decision under review complied with applicable law, including a proper interpretation of any provision under this chapter. The Commission will consider the Administrative Appeal in accordance with the hearing procedure set forth in the Agenda Item. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Commission shall determine whether City staff's decision should be"reversed or affirmed, wholly or in part," or"modified." CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION: • Applicant name and address and authorized representative: Robert Holmes 1689 Wingspan Way, Winter Springs through his attorney, Alison Yurko, Esq., 921 Bradshaw Terrace, Orlando, FL 32806 • Property owner's name(s): Richard C. Van Smith and Lisa G. Van Smith • Property address: 1691 Wingspan Way, Winter Springs, FL • Property Parcel ID number: 08-21-31-504-0000-1140 • Current FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential • Current Zoning Designation: PUD (Planned Unit Development) • Previously Approved Development permits such as conditional use, waiver, or variance (if any): None • Development Agreements (if any): None • Pending Code Enforcement Actions (if any): No Code Enforcement actions • City Liens (if any): No City liens APPLICABLE LAW & PUBLIC POLICY Home Rule Powers Florida Statutes City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Ordinance 2010-08 Related to Accessory Dwelling Units City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances, Section 6-85 - Accessory Dwelling Units October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 3 of 7 Chapter 20, Winter Springs Zoning Code, Conditional Uses City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances, Section 20-35 - Administrative Appeals Florida Building Code CHRONOLOGY • September 10, 2013 - City received a building permit application for a proposed addition to single-family home located at 1691 Wingspan Way. • September 16 through 18, 2013 — Attorney Alison M. Yurko, representing the neighboring property owner Robert Holmes who resides at 1689 Wingspan Way,questioned City staff as to why the proposed addition did not constitute an Accessory Dwelling Unit under the City Code. • September 20, 2013 —Letter from Randy Stephenson, Community Development Director, to Alison Yurko stating that City staff's final determination is that the proposed addition was not an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)and did not require a conditional use zoning permit under Chapter 20 of the Winter Springs Code. • September 24, 2013 - Letter from attorney Alison M. Yurko to Randy Stevenson filing an Administrative Appeal challenging City staffs September 20, 2013 decision. • September 26, 2013 — CORRECTION Letter from attorney Alison M. Yurko to Kevin Smith/Randy Stevenson filing an Administrative Appeal challenging City staff's September 20, 2013 decision. • On October 15, 2013, the Planning & Zoning Board is scheduled to consider making a recommendation to the City Commission on the administrative appeal. The recommendation will be presented at the Commission meeting due to the short time frame between the Board's meeting and the Commission meeting. IS SUE ON APPEAL Whether the a building permit application proposing an addition to a single-family home located at 1691 Wingspan Way(Property owner Richard&Lisa Van Smith) constitutes an accessory dwelling unit that would require the property owner to obtain a conditional use permit under Chapter 20 of the Winter Springs City Zoning Code. If the addition does not constitute an accessory dwelling unit, City Staff's September 20,2013 decision should be affirmed. If the addition constitutes an accessory dwelling unit,City Staff's September 20,2013 decision should be reversed. APPEAL STANDARD OF REVIEW Per Section 20-35 (E) of the City Code of Ordinances, review of administrative decisions shall be based upon the following limited criteria: (1)Whether the applicant(Robert Holmes)was properly afforded procedural due process; (2)Whether the decision under review is supported by competent, substantial evidence; and October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 4 of 7 (3)Whether the decision under review complied with applicable law,including a proper interpretation of any provision under Chapter 20 Zoning. BURDEN OF PROOF Applying the standard of review criteria stated above,the burden of proof is on the Appellant,Robert Holmes, to demonstrate by competent substantial evidence that City's staff's September 20, 2013 determination that the proposed addition is not an accessory dwelling unit was made in error. HEARING PROCEDURE In order to provide a fair opportunity to be heard during the hearing,the appellant,the applicant/property owner, and City Staff will be afforded a reasonable period of time during which to present their respective cases. The order of presentation will be as follows: I. Procedural Introduction by the Chairman II. Appellant to present substantive appeal argument III. Staff presents response to Appellant's argument W. Permit Applicant/Property Owner's response to Appellant's argument(if any) V. Brief rebuttal by Appellant. VI. Limited Public Participation-Members of the public will be afforded an opportunity to present testimony and documents relevant to the standard of review criteria, subject to a three (3) minute time limit and cross-examination by the Appellant, City Staff, or Applicant/Property Owner. VII. Optional Closing Comments by City Staff VIII Optional Closing Comments by Applicant/Property Owner IX. Optional Closing Comments by Appellant X. Deliberation and Questions by Planning& Zoning Board XI. Recommendation by Planning& Zoning Board October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 5 of 7 BACKGROUND OF STAFF'S DECISION: On September 10, 2013, the Community Development Department received a building permit application for a proposed addition to a single-family home located at 1691 Wingspan Way, in Glen Eagle, Unit II. The addition is approximately 989 square feet in area and is concentrated generally in the rear and side yards of the property. As of the date of this Agenda Item, City Staff and the Property Owner's engineer are in the process of resolving the remaining comments of the Building Official and the building permits are close to being issued. During the standard review process,City Staff asked the applicant to submit an approval letter from the Glen Eagle homeowners association. The applicant submitted a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Glen Eagle Community Association,which is dated July 31, 2013. This Resolution states the homeowner may continue with the home addition that was approved by the Board at the July 16, 2013 meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed addition and determined that it was not an ADU. The floor plan proposes a bathroom with a shower, a guest bedroom, a multipurpose play room, a wet bar, and three closets. The plans do not propose separate cooking facilities and the addition opens internally to the existing family room as well as the existing pool/deck area. It does have a separate entry. In furtherance of the City's Comprehensive Plan,the City Commission adopted accessory dwelling unit regulations pursuant to Ordinance No.2010-08 as an affordable housing option for all people,including the elderly, and as a way for homeowners to supplement their income during a time of economic hardship,reducing the likelihood of foreclosure. Ordinance No.2010-08 amended Section 20-1,Zoning Code Definitions, to define an "accessory dwelling unit (ADU)" to mean an ancillary or secondary dwelling unit that is clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling, which has a separate egress/ingress independent from the principal dwelling, and which provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and which includes provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The ADU is located on the same parcel as the principal dwelling and shall be subject to the required setbacks of the principal structure. The ADU may be either attached to or detached from the principal dwelling. Ordinance No. 2010-08 also adopted regulations applicable to ADUs in Section 6-85 of the City Code. During the review of the building permit application, City Staff reviewed the building plans submitted and determined that the proposed addition will become a cohesive part of the existing principal structure with a connecting hallway and the proposed addition does not constitute a "complete independent living facility." Particularly,while the proposed addition includes standard electrical outlets and a wet bar sink, it does not provide provisions for a full kitchen or dining area (including no provision for cooking). Therefore, the proposed addition did not constitute an ADU as defined in Section 20-1. Furthermore,the Building Official reviewed the application in accordance with the Residential portion of the Florida Building Code to determine whether the proposed addition is an addition to a single-family unit or a separate living unit that requires tenant separation.Based on his review of the Florida Building Code Residential Chapter 2 R202 Definitions section, the definition of dwelling unit was considered. Dwelling unit is defined as: "A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons,including permanent provisions for living, sleeping,eating,cooking and sanitation."If the proposed addition had met the definition of dwelling unit, then a minimum 1 hour separation between the units, as required by the Florida Building Code Residential section R302.3, would have been October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 6 of 7 required.Florida Building Code Residential section R302.3 two-family dwellings states the following: "Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and/or floor assemblies having not less than a 1-hour fire-resistance rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263. Fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling and wall assemblies shall extend to and be tight against the exterior wall, and wall assemblies shall extend from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing." In the case of the proposed addition,there are no cooking facilities,no 220 volt wire run or gas line proposed anywhere in the addition. Therefore without the cooking facilities and the 1 hour fire wall separation,the proposed addition does not qualify as an additional dwelling unit and is instead characteristic of an addition to a single family home under the Florida Building Code. On September 26, 2013, the neighboring property owner, Robert Holmes, filed an Administrative Appeal contending that City Staff's decision was made in error and that the proposed addition is not an addition to the home, but rather an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) that requires a conditional use zoning permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. Specifically, Mr. Holmes contends that the proposed addition is "approximately 998 square feet in area and will contain a washer/dryer,multiple large closets, what appears to be two bedrooms, a large "multi-purpose" room that opens up into a "wetbar" room, and a separate ingress/egress that opens into up into a hallway that leads to the wetbar and multi-purpose room."Additionally,the Administrative Appeal contends that the City's web site and Code contemplates a conditional use process with public participation,recommendation by the City's Planning&Zoning Board and ultimate decision by the City Commission when an ADU is requested.It is Mr. Holmes contention that the proposed addition will allow two families to live in a single-family home,which will have impacts to the adjacent neighbors that are typically not found in a single-family residential neighborhood, such as additional cars, and a motorcycle that will be parked on the property. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on the City associated with this agenda item. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: The Meeting Agenda and this Agenda Item have been distributed by email to Robert Holmes attorney and Richard Van Smith from the City Attorney's office. The Meeting Agenda and this Agenda Item have also been forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission and are available on the City's Web site,LaserFiche, and the City's Server. The Agenda has also been forwarded to City Manager; and City Attorney/Staff. Additionally, the Meeting Agenda has been sent to media/press representatives, all Homeowner's Associations on file with the City, all individuals who have requested Agenda information, Department Directors; and also posted outside City Hall; posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the general public. Both the applicant and the affected property owner were provided copies of this agenda item. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to section 20-35(f), City Code, Staff recommends that the City Commission consider the Administrative Appeal and either reverse, affirm or modify,wholly or in part, the Staffs September 20, 2013 determination that the proposed addition is not an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and does not require a conditional use zoning permit under section 20-33 of the City's Zoning Code. October 16,2013 City Commission,Item 600 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENTS: Administrative Record and Index of all documents,plans,papers or other materials constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken pursuant to Section 20-35(b), City Code.